metalgearfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Metal Gear D
the D stood for Deturence :That's an interesting theory (I assume you mean "Deterrence"). I always thought it could have been "Dva" (Russian for "two"), since it was the second Metal Gear to be developed by Dr. Madnar. I don't think it was ever revealed what it actually stood for (if anything), which is strange considering that Metal Gear G was codenamed "Gustav." It was probably just a designation, much like Hind D. --Bluerock 20:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :::spell check dont work on this page 4 me :P since metal gear 4 stated that big boss'es gears where for deterrence I assumed ether kojami knew from the start Big Boss wasnt as evil as made out or its a happy coincdence that fits and can be retconed. Well till someone says what it is Il just assume Im right (like I do about Liquid rly possesing ocelot in 2 and faking in 4 cos the real liquids plans didnt fit in with ocelots so he made the fake liquid plan to steal sop and stuff) 17:11, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Design Still waiting on a valid reason for why an obscure R1 cutscene (in the vein of Ocelot's appearance at Big Boss's award ceremony) of a pseudo-Metal Gear D, should be taken as proof of D's design origins. This point of contention was even discussed in "Behind the scenes" before its reversion by trolls, with non-reasoning such as, "only doing this to annoy you," and, "go slit your throat." --Bluerock 22:27, March 4, 2011 (UTC) It's not obscure. The R1 option is automatically shown. The R1 option is not shown during the award ceremony. Now go slit your throat. ;) -- 22:37, March 4, 2011 (UTC) It is obsure. One has to manually turn the camera to see it. People were even claiming it to be TX-55 before I corrected the relevant articles. And what does it matter that the R1 option is shown or not? Is that the official criteria now? I'll even provide some of your own reasoning, such as: Kojima didn't say so, nor is it stated in the MGS4 Database. The fact is, there's no evidence to support that it was anything more than an in-game easter egg. Still waiting for a valid reason why it should be taken as proof. --Bluerock 22:45, March 4, 2011 (UTC) So what? The option to move it around is still there. Also, the database doesn't say Granin designed REX. Kojima didn't say so. -- 22:52, March 4, 2011 (UTC) Still waiting for a valid reason why it should be taken as proof. Since when was stating assumption as fact standard Wikia policy? --Bluerock 22:56, March 4, 2011 (UTC) Since 1772. Give me a GOOD reason why Granin didn't design D. -- 23:01, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :The onus is on you to prove that he did. I NEVER claimed that he did not, I merely removed the assumptions being made. :Sorry to disappoint, but removing unsourced material and hearsay is the right of every user on this site; especially with trolls and anons who refuse to partake in meaningful debate, and carry out cyber-bullying and vandalism bordering on death threats. There is nothing more to discuss with you. --Bluerock 23:11, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :Really? Well, the burden is on YOU to deal with me reverting your edits. No matter how long it takes, I will revert your edits until you give up. And I did provide proof, the designs can be seen during the R1 cutscene. So do me a favor. Fuck off. -- 13:01, March 5, 2011 (UTC) ::As you yourself said, the R1 cutscene with Ocelot watching the awards ceremony at Langley didn't count as proof in regards to whether it was canon or not, so why should the Metal Gear D being designed by Granin be counted as absolute proof if at least one R1 cutscene (the one with Ocelot) shouldn't? I see things in absolutes, really and I'm also an egalitarian and, to use the old adage, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", so if one thing's not proof, then how should anything else that can be accessed under similar means be considered "proof?" Hey, I hate citing sources as much as the next person, if not moreso due to a few instances where I have to cite sources on the web and it proved to be very painful and sometimes I get mocked anyways, but guess what? This world depends on it, so as long as the world depends on it, then like it or not, I and everyone else has to give absolute proof that absolutely everyone else has to agree on. Besides, I thought you said that you were going to stop edit-warring on Bluerock's user page when I tried to address the issue to Omega Fighter's page? Honestly, I wish there was someone who would actually stop this edit warring. Weedle McHairybug 13:15, March 5, 2011 (UTC) :::Since when did you read what I type? Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the D design isn't obscure because the R1 option is actually shown unlike Ocelot. Also, the R1 option shows the REX designs. Should the REX designs be considered non-canon as well? -- 13:45, March 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::Konami thought otherwise when they decided to have RAXA, ZEKE, and Chrysalis, have identical features to REX's design. No such case with D, as with the toy models of Jehuty and RAY in Granin's office. --Bluerock 16:15, March 5, 2011 (UTC)